Conservapedia talk:Blocking policy

• Conservapedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive1

Drop down lists

Discussion moved from here

How would the drop down lists be edited? It should also contain 1 year and 2 year blocks, I think. It's a b ig spread from 6 mos to 5 years. Other changes on the lists also need to be considered. Rob Smith 18:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

I've never dealt with the drop down lists to be honest - but I'm certain they can be edited. I'll attempt to research this and get back to you very shortly.--IDuan 22:46, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Found it! MediaWiki:Ipboptions.--IDuan 22:58, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

How is those pages don't have page protect? Rob Smith 23:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

They're protected for me sir! Mediawiki pages might be protected by default? (That's just a guess, though.)--IDuan 23:04, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

What about the link for the blocking Reason? Rob Smith 23:19, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown --IDuan 23:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Let me know if you can edit MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown; I propose we begin with this [1] list of offenses, even then, some need to be reviewed/merged/clarified. I'm going to begin inserting them at Conservapedia:Blocking policy. Rob Smith 19:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

I can not edit that page - it was actually protected by TK here. I'm in favor of starting with that list. Sounds good!--IDuan 15:26, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Should be working now. I got a limited protect on it. Rob Smith 15:41, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Are we gonna move this into the mainspace? I think it's more concise and up-to-date than the current version.--IDuan 20:40, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

5 year blocks

Item #3, Obvious vandals who have been blocked indefinitely (or for 5 years) should have their user and user talk pages deleted , is one where we've had some serious problems with. Users with consrtuctive careers, but who have taken hiatus or retired for POV reasons, have had their pages deleted by sysops as a form of payback for past disagreements. None of this has created a healthy environment. A sysop should not be looking for a reason to block someone for 5 years so they can retaliate by deleting their page. All this, I'm sorry to say, has happened in the past. And if a user is blocked for 5 years, what's to stop them from coming back as a good faith editor in 5 years after a period of rehab, to find their page deleted. What then? They may as well create a new user account under a different name rather than go through the ordeal of asking a sysop to undelete, which only raises suspicion, and has them targeted all over again as a problem editor. So why wait 5 years? They may as well sockpuppet now then deal with the hassle. Only now they have a chip on their shoulder for having their user account deleted and recognition besmirched for their positive contributions. Is there a housekeeping reason a temporary blocked editor should have their account deleted? Rob Smith 21:40, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

<-Another way of looking at it. User:A, with extensive mainspace contributions, is blocked or 5 years as a retalitory tactic for un ugly disagreement with a sysop. Their account is deleted. User:A does not edit for 5 years, comes back in 5 years as a good faith editor, but is afraid to ask to have his account undeleted so he can get full recogition for his positive contributions. User:A creates a new account under a different username. Techncally, this could be seen as a violation of CP rules against multiple accounts, despite his block having expired and the editor's return as a user in good standing. Rob Smith 21:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

I must admit I'm slightly confused just about your interpretation. What I've written (as you accurately quote it) is "obvious vandals who have been blocked indefinitely (or for 5 years)..." ... therefor non "obvious vandal" users who have been blocked for 5 years would not be subject to page deletion. I agree that it's a de facto problem - you're absolutely right - I'm just pointing out that it's not what I've written. I think the important thing is making clear that situations like the one you describe should not happen. No one should be blocked as a retaliatory tactic. Perhaps this should be explicitly stated. I shall work on that--IDuan 22:51, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes, but it's the same sysop who hands out the 5 year block & deletes the page. If this is to be retained, it should include language such as, "vandals who have been blocked indefinitely (or for 5 years) after a review process may be subject to having their user and user talk pages deleted", but nobodies given a reason for deleting the page, to my knowledge. Rob Smith 23:08, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

OH now I understand. I'm certainly fine with removing it; to be honest I'm not sure if it really does much harm (if a sysop disagrees with the block he can always restore the user and user talk pages), but besides for saving a modicum of space I don't think there was ever any reason for deleted the pages. I have no opinion as to whether its kept or not.--IDuan 23:14, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Rob, for those of us who are not admins, it's really hard for us to opine. I do know that Wikipedia does indefinite blocks for user accounts, but might block an IP for a short set time. The only comment I would have is that the blocking rules be predefined, but it seems like it is already here. If people get blocked for a liberal point of view (I don't check the block log so I wouldn't know), I would think here that's fair game. HP 23:23, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

People get blocked for registering accounts here and never making an edit. Rob Smith 23:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Not often. It can happen in some circumstances, but it's not routine.--Andy Schlafly 23:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes there may be a need to block a sock-plant that's been inactive and never used over time, but I've seen too many user accounts blocked minutes after being created. It can be because someone isn't using checkuser properly, or there's just a controversy in the air and someone doesn't want to deal with questions about it. If good faith is expected of users, good faith should be exhibited by sysops by not being suspicious of every new acount registered. Rob Smith 23:46, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

To my mind the only situation where such a block would be acceptable would be a username-related offense, in which case obviously the IP should not be blocked. (update: and sockpuppets)--IDuan 23:43, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

The failue to use first name & last initial should not be a blockable offense, IMO; and the guidelines themselves say "encouraged" or "recommended". Rob Smith 23:51, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

I think generally that block reason hasn't been used in a strict sense, but rather only when usernames are offensive or potentially offensive. But I agree.--IDuan 23:54, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

We need to consider shorter block times in general, and maybe order the current list by severity. Sockpuppetry and vandalism are most definitely not in the same league as edit warring and 90/10.

Especially 90/10 (even more so in the current "It's called 90/10, but the numbers don't actually matter" interpretation) is little more than an easy escape hatch from a debate a sysop might end up losing, so there needs to be some sort of balance to it. (More on balance later, perhaps. It's an important topic, but also a more global long shot.)

Some people need to keep in mind that we need to build a community. That doesn't mean blindly accepting anybody, but it also doesn't mean giving five-year-blocks to people who point out that you made a mistake. My very presence here shows that things are moving in a better direction, so let's hammer out a way to distinguish between blocking (months/years for vandalism) and nudging (hours, days to cool down). --Sid 3050 08:03, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank you Sid for your positive input, hope to hear more. One problem is a mindset that everything Wikipedia does is wrong. While that may be true in article content policy, Conservapedia needs to learn it can gain much from Wikipedia's experience dealing with vandalism and sockpuppetry.

Blocking & Checkuser are not the magic panaceas some people imagine; if an angry editor wants to be heard, they will find a way to get in and only make the sysop and whole project look foolish for thinking they can enforce unenforceable rules. As Sid alluded to, it's easier to build a balanced and civil community with a healthy tolerance of diverse views, and persuade people to positively contribute by example, than constant sniping in a war the project cannot win. Rob Smith 12:44, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Infinite blocks

Infinite blocks are disfavored, for several reasons, including how some people move from being liberal to conservative -- more often than other liberals admit.--Andy Schlafly 23:35, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Agreed. Redemption should be a possibility. This should be reflected in the blocking policy - or at Conservapedia:New sysop training page (which is being worked on here - where I've changed the language to say "Keep in mind that users can change - infinite blocks are therefore discouraged.")--IDuan 23:45, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Parody

I'd rename this section to something like "Mocking" because the real problem of "parody" (in the sense that some people in CP's history were "parodists") by far exceeds this description and is the result of deeper problems within the site itself. So let's avoid confusion. --Sid 3050 07:31, 19 July 2011 (EDT)